8 Responses

That one is pretty good. I always enjoy videos that help to illustrate the immensity of it all. This was a good one in the “related videos” after the end:

Makes a good atheist point at the end.

It’s always fascinating to me that theists think that atheists are somehow self-important in their idea that we have only ourselves to thank for what we have. I don’t see how they don’t realize that atheism is really the most humble position possible, when concerning existence, purpose, and all that jazz.

To me, thinking that one species of life on one spec of rock among billions of solar systems among billions of galaxies was made special by an all powerful being is the most arrogant, immodest point of view I can imagine.

Scientifically, the most humble position should be closer to the side that provides the most positive evidence for itself and doesn’t allow any personal bias to influence collection and interpretation of said evidence. To do anything different is to bring one’s own subjective views to the table, which reveals a position based on a load of dogmatic baggage for which there is zero evidence.

If by your proposition, we should always sit ourselves scientifically in the middle of God/No God, how do we know which god to put on one side of the scale? I think to choose a particular god for that purpose would be highly presumptuous, and highly arrogant.

To lack a belief is to presume that a belief exists to lack. How do you know what that belief is if you lack it, as you say? McBloggenstein, you’re right, it would be highly presumptuous, and highly arrogant to choose a particular god for the purpose of deciding whether or not that god exists, which is logically why Michael is correct in saying the most humble position is in the middle, where the question of which god does or does not exist is immaterial as the question of whether that god exists or does not exist, does not exist.

Well, I don’t know about the whole “the most humble position is in the middle” idea. First of all, what is “the middle”? Is it assuming a 50/50 chance? I don’t think any of us believe that any unknown has a 50/50 chance.

And if we did, we’d all be paralyzed by fear. A 50/50 chance we’ll be killed in a car accident on the way to the grocery store today? Maybe it’s safer not to go at all. The chance that there is an invisible unicorn standing in your living room? I doubt any of us would say there’s a 50/50 chance. Most people would probably just say, “non-sense”. Those people who say there is no unicorn – they must be arrogant, right? Which gets us into the very definition of atheism. Passive atheism is merely a lack of belief in god. Active atheism asserts that there is no god. It’s hard to argue that passive atheism is arrogant (just like a lack of belief in bigfoot isn’t “arrogant”, nor is it a “belief” on the same level as someone who claims bigfoot does exist).

There is a school of thought (evidentialism) which states that beliefs need to be based on evidence – and a lack of belief in the existence of something is the default position. Hence, unless good evidence can be provided for the existence of something (god), then non-belief (not agnosticism) is the best position.

Many anti-atheists tend to equate “atheism” with “active atheism”. Personally, I don’t worry too much about attacking atheists for active atheism. In some sense, I think it’s a challenge to theists to actually put-up some evidence. Sometimes it’s a good thing if someone stands up and asserts that “the emperor’s got no clothes on!” rather than the passive atheist’s “I lack a belief in the existence of the emperor’s clothing”.

Further, I don’t equate it with “belief” or “faith”. It’s hard to walk around all day maintaining that we must be agnostic about everything we can’t prove. Personally, I think the human brain craves certainty. (In fact, I recently heard about a study of happiness and religious beliefs – it said that atheists and theists were, on average, the happiest while agnostics were less-happy than either group. Not only does this make me think people are happier with certainty, but makes me wonder if the “you must be agnostic” ends up being a clever ploy to slowly move someone into the “theist” category because theism is a happier place than “agnosticism”.) Yes, the human desire for certainty does lead to all kinds of problems in the world (in terms of political and religious beliefs – where people claim certainty over their preferred religion or political party), but, in as much as we are human, we will tend to “round-down” our opinions to the closest reality which also achieves a feeling of certainty – which ends up converting passive atheism into active atheism. In fact, we all do this. None of us believe that a boogy-man is inside our closet, waiting to jump out at night when we are asleep. We simply say, “There is no boogey-man”, even though we all know there isn’t any “proof” of the non-existence of the boogey-man. Is that arrogant? According to your argument, apparently so. I suppose it’s technically correct that we can’t absolutely say there is no boogey-man in our closet, but it seems rather silly to complain when someone asserts “there is no boogey-man in the closet”. None of us is really going to maintain a belief “in the middle” about the boogey-man.